Bitcoin Forum

House Resolution 569 was introduced on December 17th by the Democrats and it’s dangerous. It’s self-described purpose is “condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States.”

There is no proof of a war against Muslims in this country. Racial hate and anti-semitism are far worse problems, but that won’t stop leftists from using it as an excuse to put in laws that damage or destroy the First Amendment.

Democrats have been trying to ban hate speech and now plan to exploit Muslims to achieve their goals.

The measure panders for votes from the Muslim community, a community of people who are conservative and don’t even belong with these leftists. It’s all a prelude to the death of the First Amendment.

Resolutions of this nature have a tendency to be reintroduced later as binding legislation to be forwarded to the Senate. The introduction of this resolution is not yet newsworthy, but it will be if it emerges intact from committee to be voted on by the whole House says Edward Cline at the Rule of Reason.

People behind the resolution include:  Keith Ellison, a Democrat and Muslim from Minnesota; Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Democrat and chairman of the Democratic National Committee; Charles Rangel, New York Democrat; and Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said that she would prosecute hate speech against Muslims though it’s obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

Hillary

Hillary Clinton has attempted to do the same thing and if she is president, she will push for the UN resolution criminalizing criticisms of Islam.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has a plan to criminalize criticism of Islam embodied in UN Human Rights Council 16/18 “combating [religious] intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization” passed in March 2011.

The resolution is modeled on extremist Pakistani Blasphemy Laws used to prosecute imperiled minority Christians for alleged desecration of the Qur’anic canon and Sharia Law.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), according to Wiki, is an international organisation consisting of 57 member states. The organisation attempts to be the collective voice of the Muslim world (Ummah) and attempts to safeguard the interests and ensure the progress and well-being of Muslims.

As an aside, remember when Obama said he visited 57 states, perhaps he meant the Muslim states.

The OIC has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, and considers itself the largest international organisation outside of the United Nations.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) in Cairo in 1990. It affirms Islamic Shari’ah as its sole source.

This declaration enabled the Muslim states to ignore the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan, in particular, criticized the UN Declaration because it did not follow Shari’ah Law.

One of the most fundamental concerns of Islam and Shari’ah Law is slander. Slander against God is the worst form of slander. We have seen the reaction of some Islamists to criticism of Mohammed. Slander in Shari’ah extends far beyond God. Their understanding of slander, and their manner of dealing with it, is very different than ours.

We hear the term Islamophobia used in conjunction with slander. The word was coined in the 80’s or 90’s and has been used frequently since 9/11. There were no significant retaliations against Muslims in the United States after 9/11, but the media and Islamic groups acted as if there were.

People in the United States are not Islamophobic and there is no need to deal with this nonexistent problem. We have some legitimate concerns about extremists.

Islamophobia, as defined in 1997 by the British Runnymede Trust, is the “dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims,” stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion.

How can anyone accuse Americans of being Islamophobic under this definition. It’s absurd.

Resolution 16/18 was the topic of discussion with Hillary Clinton and OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu in December 2011. Both she and Barack Obama have been receptive to adopting some version of this definition.


http://www.independentsentinel.com/breaking-democrats-introduce-measure-to-condemn-criticism-of-islam/

Oh lord. No way, dude. You are a straight up racist.  ::)

Politicians have been trying to destroy our constitution since 9/11.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There's real drama here. The thought police is alive and kicking everywhere. I'm not American, but it's the same thing in Europe. Some jewish jokes which everybody thought funny a generation ago make people uncomfortable now. It's shocking to read in some magazines that we shall not condemn muslims because they are the first victims of terrorists. And you're a fascist moron if you don't like gays.

Free speech is a lost cause in Europe, I hope it will last in America, but I'm not sure it will despite the constitution.

The reason other candidates, both democrat and republican, keep condemning whatever hillary says is because they are worried about being politically correct to get votes.

Allahu akbar!

 ;)

Hm... Seems as quite loaded resolution, since I thought that constitution protects them from any kind of discrimination.

Oh, interesting.  Now we all know.

Muslim is a "race."

Wait, so we shouldn't condemn mulsims because they are the first victims of terrorists?

So should we condemn them because they are fascist morons who don't like gays?

Or is the lesson here is that there is a "They" who is not "Us" who does the condemning, and who makes the decisions about what to permit and what to not permit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w

I don't know why they are treating the Muslims like they are some sort of privileged citizens. In the United States, anyone can criticize Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or even Atheism. So what is the point in banning criticism against Islam? The Islamic clerics can criticize other religions, and in return no one will be able to criticize Islam?

the mesure should not be restrained to islam but all the belives a person belive into a religion can not be condamed

All people are equal, but some of them are more equal than others.

Yeah... I know that. For the Democrats, the Muslims are always the "priority demographic group", since most of their funding comes from the sheikhs in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As a voting bloc inside the US, the Arabs are not very powerful or significant in any sense. But their monetary power more than make up for the insignificance of their population.

 8)